nerdylibertarian:

thefreelioness:

crusadermaximus:

thefreelioness:

libertyanthem:

staticdiplomat:

priceofliberty:

againstpower:

Fuck you, Rand Paul.

Yet another reason why I will not support this LINO.

“Rand Paul of Kentucky, who describes himself as a libertarian” 
Subtext: because he sure as hell ain’t one.

HAHA and the flag of israel to his right is even more revealing

glad people are finally understanding this bozo to be who he is.

It’s actually not that hard to understand.  One can love anyone, regardless of what their genitals look like.

But no one should be forced to recognize that relationship by law. Ensuring that marriage is a state level rather than a federal issue is a Constitutional position. Because all civil marriage licenses were implemented on a state by state basis, they should be repealed on a state by state basis (as such, this issue is irrelevant to Rand and any Federal office he holds). You should be applauding him for wanting to keep the Feds out of marriage. We are not advancing the Constitution by getting the Feds involved in our beds.

The Rand haters are grasping at straws on this issue.

I disagree.  If a state has the right to control who can marry who, they should not be able to discriminate by sex.  

The problem, as I have said many times, is marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults. Since the State is the only arbiter of contracts currently (no polycentric legal system) they should not discriminate based on any gender. The state would not invalidate a business contract between two men or two women, and that’s pretty much the essence of what marriage is two individuals wanting to enter into contract to help each other out for life(or until divorce). Everything else around it is whatever you want it to be and whatever it means to you and your partner. 

Rand Paul’s not a libertarian or even a Libertarian, he’s a Rel-Lib-Con.

The Rand Paul Principle:

priceofliberty:

whatiscapitalism:

Rand Paul is like a political litmus test. Libertarians who hate him are the crazies we can safely ignore while we go and actually achieve something. Conservatives who hate him are RINOs we can safely ignore while we go ahead and fight for liberty.

Rand Paul, 2016.

What

whatiscapitalism is right, Rand Paul is the litmus test. He’s just wrong in the application.

Here’s how I see it:

If you know who Rand Paul is, you pay attention more than 90% of America. 

If you think that Rand Paul makes decent points, you’re on the good side of things. 

If you think Rand Paul is a libertarian you’re either clueless about what libertarianism is or you’re a NeoCon that’s willing to get behind anyone who you think has a shot at being the next president. 

Rand Paul is a Rel-Liber-Con (A religious, quasi-libertarian, Neo-Con). He is anti-gay, anti-abortion and very pro-Christian and he promotes certain principles of liberty while completely ignoring the other ones. 

And the scary part? He’s trending away from his original libertarian platform which got him elected and he’s on an ever-accelerating slide towards full blow Neo-Conservatism. 

So, yes, Rand is a litmus test. If you’re in support of him with no qualms about it, then you’re probably not a well informed libertarian. 

- Sha

Every time Rand Paul speaks, Ron Paul uses the Constitution to give himself a paper cut. 

Every time Rand Paul speaks, Ron Paul uses the Constitution to give himself a paper cut. 

jakebreel:

Ronald Reagan and Dr. Ron Paul
<3

Ronald Reagan was a gimmick. A lot of cool quotes a lot of terrible acts against liberty and freedom. 

jakebreel:

Ronald Reagan and Dr. Ron Paul

<3

Ronald Reagan was a gimmick. A lot of cool quotes a lot of terrible acts against liberty and freedom. 

(via addictedtoliberty-deactivated20)

thefreelioness:

The Power of Nightmares, Part I

Adam Curtis’ enlightening and frightening 2004 doc series from the BBC.This one gets into radical Islam and the American neocons.  These are more reasons to look deeper into our leadership and our policies, as citizens of the world.”

I really wish I had the patience to watch this.  Has anyone else?

I started watching this last night and I watched part 2 during my lunch break, watching part 3 now. 

This might be the best real history of America and our modern foreign policy that I have ever seen. If you want to talk about politics and be taken seriously, you need to know the information that is contained in this documentary. 

All in all, it’s just shy of 3 hours long, divided into 3 parts. Watch all of it, don’t cheap out. 

moralanarchism:

Tom Woods: Secession Vs. Nullification

This was an excellent video. 

Is everyone at The Daily Caller a fucking idiot

because my only take away from a twitter convo this morning is that Jim Treacher is everything that’s wrong with the “NeoCon-GOP-rejects-turned-libertarians” movement. 

Why I don’t support Rand Paul.

This is pieced together from a discussion we had in our Armenian-Americans For Liberty group, where some of the folks think that we should support a Rand 2016 run at the Presidency and I completely disagree. Anyway, I thought I’d share the thoughts here since I think most of you would either agree or would like to see the logic. Part of this has been edited to make more sense. 

Someone had posted a quote about Rand on tumblr and it goes like this: “Good people do shitty things one little compromise at a time.” - Cory Doctorow. 

Rand lost me a long time ago when he showed that he’s willing to compromise his principles to get a head in the GOP. 

If Rand’s willing to bend to support a shitty candidate that NO ONE thought had a chance, what else is he willing to bend for? Ron stood by his for decades and he got this far without bending and certainly not breaking. Rand spent two years in office and he was instantly a GOP-bitch-boy. 

Rand Paul is not a Ron Paul Republican. Rand is a pseudo-libertarian, quasi-NeoCon. He likes some liberties and doesn’t like others. You can’t pick and choose liberty. It’s one of the few things in life that is all or nothing. 

Here’s Rand in his own words in TIME magazine before he was elected: 

They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian

The article goes on to say: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.

To me, Rand thinks he can scoop up Ron’s base and I’m sad to say that he will probably get a large portion of it simply because even the libertarian base is easily susceptible to cult-politics. 

However, voting for Rand because he is Ron’s son is no different than voting for Obama or Romney because of the political party they associate with. If you support Rand simply because he’s Ron’s son and you expect him to walk in Ron’s shoe’s you’re not only mistaken, you’re a hypocrite. Rand can’t walk in Ron’s shoes because he refuses to wear them. 

If you vote for Rand based on his genetic relation to Ron, you’re doing nothing short of practicing the same cult-based politics that 99% of this nation endorses and we strive to end. It’s the very thing that we’ve been fighting (or so I thought) since we all began to back the Liberty Movement, let’s not throw it all away now based on something as silly as a last name. 

There are other up-and-coming politicians that are more principled and built from Ron Paul’s mold than Rand is or will ever be. I know it’s four years away and anything can happen, but Rand’s already lost my vote. I’m not even sure he had it in the first place. 

I’d also like to address another question that always seems to pop up in discussions like these, if not Rand Paul in 2016, then who? Find someone principled and capable. Someone who is unwilling to play the ridiculous game of “scratch-your-back” politics. If you can’t find someone to vote for as President, dissent 

Write in your own name, write in Thomas Jefferson or simply don’t cast a vote for President.  We don’t have to get someone in to the office of the President in order to win the fight against oppression, we can make a lot of head way through local politics, state senates, or in either house of Congress. All politics are local. Change starts with small, calculated steps. We need to first spark the embers, only with the right gust can we ignite the flame. 

@Suga_Shane

Forget the Obama commercial, that&#8217;s a non-issue.
There&#8217;s a lot of reasons I can list but mainly because Clint Eastwood endorsed Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney is for big government, bailouts, NDAA, other violations of civil liberties &amp; the Constitution and more wars. 
I can&#8217;t consider you a real libertarian if you get up on national television and pledge your endorsement for a man of these values. Clint might have some &#8220;libertarian&#8221; values, but he isn&#8217;t a libertarian. 
That&#8217;s okay. It&#8217;s okay to be a person who has some libertarian values. Hell, Obama has some libertarian values. But to call yourself and have people believe that you&#8217;re a full-on libertarian gives real libertarians a bad name. 

Forget the Obama commercial, that’s a non-issue.

There’s a lot of reasons I can list but mainly because Clint Eastwood endorsed Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney is for big government, bailouts, NDAA, other violations of civil liberties & the Constitution and more wars

I can’t consider you a real libertarian if you get up on national television and pledge your endorsement for a man of these values. Clint might have some “libertarian” values, but he isn’t a libertarian. 

That’s okay. It’s okay to be a person who has some libertarian values. Hell, Obama has some libertarian values. But to call yourself and have people believe that you’re a full-on libertarian gives real libertarians a bad name.